Monday, June 15, 2015

If you mistakenly thought that deniers like Anthony Watts might have some ethics or even a tiny shred of decency hidden very deep, you're wrong. In a topsy turvy and ugly article at WUWT today, Anthony Watts has someone trying to defend his appalling email to Tom Peterson of NOAA, in which he accuses Dr Peterson of fraud. Kip Hansen (archived here) tries to twist this into it being Andy Revkin who committed "a public journalistic offense". (I did say "that's gotta hurt".)

Any notion that Watts is interested in fostering an atmosphere of civility and constructive discourse evaporates pretty quickly in considering how he handled his questions about that paper. Alternating between happy talk about rooftop solar and slanderous accusations is not constructive or civil.

What is really topsy turvy about all this is that Kip falsely claims that Anthony didn't attack Dr Peterson. He did:

He failed to discover the obvious fact that Watts had not attacked Peterson – Watts had sent a personal email to Peterson at his official government email address, stating a change in his [Watts’] personal opinion about Peterson’s scientific ethics. It was a harsh personal opinion, but it was personal, man-to-man, between men who should be colleagues and who have been communicating with one another on a one-to-one basis for years.

Kip is wrong. First off, there is no way that Anthony Watts could possible ever be considered a "colleague" of the scientists at NOAA. Not in the wildest, most insane imagination would that thought enter anyone's head. Not in a million, zillion years. Secondly, and back in the real world - Anthony did indeed attack Dr. Peterson. Do you regard this as an attack?

In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.

After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.

This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.

If alleging fraud isn't an attack then I don't know what is. What's worse is that Kip falsely claims that Anthony didn't also make the claims publicly - when he did:

What Watts did not do: He did not publish his personal opinion publicly – despite being the editor and owner of the world’s most viewed website on climate (by orders of magnitude). He did not write a joe-romm-ish 1,500 word screed and send it to the tabloid press. That action would have been a public attack. He did not do that. There was no public attack.

Again he's wrong. Anthony Watts did publish his personal opinion publicly. He did it from the outset. Try these for what Kip claims was not a Anthony's personal opinion published at WUWT. Anthony pretty well alleges fraud:

Grandma Learns About Data Adjustment: A little story about how data adjustment might work in everyday life.
Anthony Watts / 9 hours ago June 1, 2015
Note: On Thursday of this week, NOAA/NCDC will attempt to rewrite the surface temperature record yet again, making even more “adjustments” to the data to achieve a desired effect. This story by Mr. Core is worth noting in the context of data spin that we are about to be subjected to – Anthony Watts (archived here)

Anthony Watts publicly alleges the NOAA scientists are lying

Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet. (archived here).

Next he implies that the scientists are fudging the data, and falsely claims that their work hasn't been peer-reviewed (the two relevant peer-reviewed papers are in top scientific journals: Science and Journal of Climate) (my emphasis of Anthony's code for "fudging":

NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time. The modus operandi so far has been to get a new paper published describing what NCDC considers to be a new and improved dataset, and since NCDC’s articles are often peer reviewed by other government employed scientists at NOAA, they often don’t get a critical peer review. (archived here)

"People go to jail" says Anthony Watts, in public - on WUWT quoting himself on Fox News

And there's more in an article Anthony co-wrote, quoting himself to Fox News, suggesting that the NOAA scientists are fudging the data and should be imprisoned:

Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data. To revisit something said in regards to a previous news story about NCDC’s tendency to adjust data as time goes on, so much so that they can’t even tell us with certainty anymore which month in the past century was the warmest on record, this is still applicable:
“
“Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment,” Watts told FoxNews.com.
“In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”

Anthony is even suggesting that the NOAA scientists should go to jail!

Interesting emails

Some might think that NOAA under the direction of Tom Karl designed their ship-buoy bias adjustments with the sole intent of minimizing the impacts of natural slowdown in surface warming. (Those would be some interesting emails and meeting minutes to read.)

Anthony Watts and his "slime" - in public

And don't forget the very public twitter exchange, where Anthony tried to claim that Tom Peterson (and I) were the ones doing the "sliming", because we made public Anthony's defamatory email.

Anthony Watts rejects Kip Hansen's article and sets him straight

Not only that, but underneath Kip Hansen's own article in which, contrary to the facts, he tried to claim:

What Watts did not do: He did not publish his personal opinion publicly

Well, if you think the above isn't Anthony publishing his personal opinion publicly, then he's rectified the situation, writing quite clearly that he does accuse the NOAA scientists of fraud:

Note from Anthony:
Kip Hansen wrote this essay unsolicited. While I admit I used harsh words, probably the harshest I’ve ever used, I too was surprised that Dr. Tom Peterson chose to immediately send the email to the slimiest of outlets Sou aka “hotwhopper”, run by a person dedicated to denigration, who has not the integrity to use her own name: [redacted] While I regret that I didn’t choose my words better, I have no change in my opinion on NCDC after what they did with Karl et al. 2015. And apparently, according to insiders, there was an internal fight at NCDC over the publication of Karl et al. 2015. I offered this backstory to Revkin, but he was uninterested.

Sadly, it speaks to the integrity of both Dr. Peterson and Andy Revkin that they consider this form of “journalism” acceptable.

It's not sad that Anthony has no integrity and no ethics. It's a fact of life. He's also got double standards, if one can describe a person of no standards having double standards. Don't forget that Anthony Watts himself has a policy at WUWT of publishing emails sent to him. I'm talking about emails sent to Anthony Watts, not just Anthony publishing and promoting thousands of stolen emails.

Anyway - there you have it. Anthony has repeated yet again, and publicly, with no room for mistake, that he accuses the NOAA and it's scientists of fraud. The only regret he has is that he didn't choose different words to say it. (Though as you can see from all the different permutations listed in the article above, he tried a lot of different words.)

The question now is, will any or all of these scientists sue Anthony Watts for defamation?

Thomas R. Karl

Anthony Arguez

Boyin Huang

Jay H. Lawrimore

James R. McMahon

Matthew J. Menne

Thomas C. Peterson

Russell S. Vose

Huai-Min Zhang

I'd like to see that. Anthony Watts thinks because he has a bully pulpit he can say what he likes and get away with it. It would be good if someone were to show him he's wrong. I don't know if anyone will do so, or not on his own. (Lawyers prefer to sue people who have some money).

Anthony still refuses to publish Tom Peterson's reply to him

Anthony Watts still refuses to publish Tom Peterson's reply to Anthony's accusatory email. You can read it for yourself here. He was extremely polite. (Remember, this all happened around the time that Anthony was pretending to be pals with Bill McKibben.)

From the WUWT comments

There are quite a few comments in a thread complaining that an email from Anthony Watts of WUWT was made public, about emails that Anthony Watts himself made public. With no sense of irony. (My emphasis)

xyzlatinJune 14, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Kip Hansen, have you not read the climategate emails? Sorry, but your own ignorance is showing. Revkin has been partisan cheerleader and a player behind the scenes for years. He is an activist, who happens to have a job in journalism.

geronimoJune 14, 2015 at 3:25 pm
I don’t know Andy Revkin, nor his work, but I do know from the Clmategate emails that he was regarded by the climate scientists, Mann in particular, as a glove puppet for them to feed their views through. He may be a journalist of the highest integrity but Mann, a scientist who will undoubtedly go down in history, assumed he was their “bitch”. (I think the “glove puppet” is much nicer than “bitch” but use both to overcome any US/UK cultural differences).

crosspatch defends Tom Peterson publishing the email exchange here at HotWhopper and allowing me to post it as an article

June 14, 2015 at 4:50 pm
“I have received two replies from Mr. Revkin, which I do not have explicit permission to publish. Thus, rather than simply inserting them here, I will pull three fair-use quotes ”

If someone send you an email, it belongs to you to publish or not as you wish. They have given that email to you, just as if someone send you a letter, it is yours to publish if you wish. It has been given to you. You do not need their permission to publish an email or a letter sent to you. People turn over to media (and even police) emails or letters they have received (see the latest example in California where a political operative fabricated emails from a Republican candidate and then turned those emails over to police and media).
You do not need Revkin’s permission to reproduce emails. Those emails are yours to do with as you please.

old construction worker has a warped twist June 14, 2015 at 3:43 pm
What did I tell you a few months ago. The alarmist crowd want a open discussion then stab you in the back.
Be prepared for more back stabbing as argument for Co2 induced global warming falls apart.

Pat Frank has a twisted twist June 14, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Rather, Peterson transformed Anthony’s private critical opinion into a manufactured public attack. Rather a different transformation, that; from personal to propaganda.

The difference between revealing Anthony’s private email and revealing the Climategate emails is the difference between publicly gossiping about a domestic quarrel, and publicizing hidden criminal activity, respectively.

Hockey Schtick - well I'm running out of adjectives to describe the different twists. But calling on release of stolen property to claim that revealing the contents of a defamatory email is a breach of ethics can only be described as warped, twisted, wacky, suffering too many hockey stick hits?

June 14, 2015 at 3:27 pm
This is another journalistic breach of ethics on activist Revkin’s part, but no surprise given the many Climategate emails displaying the same:

The Old CrusaderJune 14, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Well, I thought Anthony’s note to Peterson, though not understated, was certainly true as written. No hyperbole at all.
I was disappointed to have click on whopper to read it though. Hate to give sites like that traffic.

There is the odd bit of sanity peeping through at WUWT. Odd because it hints of sanity. ohflow wrote:

June 14, 2015 at 4:22 pm
I don’t really see how Revkin did Watts wrongly. Would someone please clarify this for me?
Kip wrote about there being no public attack by Watts, but I can’t find the explicit statement by Revkin claiming that Watts did?
I’ve enjoyed Revkins writing quite a bit,I don’t like seeing someone being hung out over nothing.

Update: The evolving conspiracy is is recursing with fury. Now there's the warped and twisted denialist view that it's perfectly fine for deniers like Anthony Watts and his followers to publish false accusations all over the internet, but highlighting the falsity of their accusations is criminal. That publishing stolen emails is fine, but publishing an email you own is not. M Courtney wrote his own personal conspiracy theory - that Andy Revkin "committed a felony". Heck, if journalists were sent to jail for writing about facts that come to their attention, then what's happened to the "free speech" that deniers are so fond of? (Every journo worth their salt would be locked up in prison, if M Courtney had his way. That's leaving aside the fact that Andy Revkin didn't publish the email, and that it was also sent by Anthony Watts to "undisclosed recipients" so it wasn't a private communication. Plus the fact that Anthony Watts prides himself on being "famous" - plus he said all those same things in public on his blog. Also, I cannot see that Anthony's email would be defined as being 'protected from disclosure', not least because he already made it available to third parties, going by the cc note at the bottom. It would also be eminently FOI-able. Maybe Chris Horner could send one of his numerous FOI requests that Anthony often writes about.). M Courtney wrote:

June 15, 2015 at 1:03 am
On the bright side, as it seems that Petersen has broken the law by disclosing private communications, both Revkin and Sou are in line for aiding and abetting.
They’ll still be able to propagandise from in jail but they might have enough free time to learn about the scientific method.

More seriously, has anyone considered that Revkin may have been told to shut up by the NYT’s legal department because he has committed a felony?

How does a denier brain cope with all the inconsistencies? Colliding neurons. (In the weird world of deniers, disinformers get a free pass to make up whatever lies they please, but scientists commit a crime if they stand up for their rights and the facts.)

Added by Sou at 7:41 pm on 15 June 2015

Thing is, that Kip was wrong as you can see from the above article. Anthony in this very article and lots before publicly attacked the NOAA scientists. He didn't just publicly attack them, he publicly accused them of lying, he publicly accused them of fraud, and he publicly intimated they should be in jail.

I may add some of the comments when a few more appear. Some that are there so far show that some WUWT-ers really are nuts. It's more than normal denial. Some of these people live in a totally different reality where up is down and black is white and the world spins backwards.

It's not just claims of being "private", Robert. Over at Dot Earth, Kip Hansen is claiming that dreadful unsolicited email from Anthony is "official government work-related communications". When I worked in a Minister's office, I saw similar (slightly worse maybe) "official government work-related communications" like that, which was sent unsolicited to the Minister, being passed onto police :(

In my experience, government departments have special files for correspondence like that, and they aren't labelled "official work-related government communication".

"This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today."

There is a Hollywood myth that says Yamamoto supposedly said "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." after bombing Pearl Harbour.

Considering the fact that Watts then went on to post blog article after blog article accusing the NOAA scientists of fraud, his words "Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today" could be viewed as Watts threatening Peterson with the 'recursive fury' of an avalanche of slanderous blog articles.

My amusement at the WUWTers notion of 'record' is vast. They can't see the difference between _may_ be a 'record' and _is_ a 'record'.

Plus, of course, the amusement value of people who claimed all emails on a government server were public (during climategate, hence there having been no 'hacking') and could be distributed at will by anybody, suddenly deciding that this isn't true if it's done by the recipient of the email rather than a hacker.

Anyhow, a 'record' is a very particular thing, and you need a lawyer versed in government-ese if you want to get serious about what is or is not a record. What's at hand, though, is more in line email sent by someone with no business* with the US government, and which advances no purpose of or for the agency to which it was sent. *business meaning formal business -- contractual issues; all citizens have 'business' with the government in the casual sense of the term.

Added irony -- if something is used as a basis for a 'decision' (which is also a term of art), it becomes a 'record'. In other words, if the recipients laugh at it, forward it to other people, etc., it isn't and won't be a record. But if Watts got his desired outcome from this letter -- Peterson being fired -- it _would_ be a record.

As it is, Watts' email is on par with the offers I get for enhancement of my male parts, or my female parts (spammers don't discriminate).

A freedom of information request would quickly uncover Watts email to Peterson's boss. I should imagine that any inquiry would recognise that Watts's email was neither a genuine inquiry nor a genuine complaint but rather like a nuisance phone call.

The emails I saw showed that Anthony sent it to more than one recipient. He send it to [cc undisclosed recipients].

Not only that but Anthony himself has a policy at WUWT of publishing emails sent to him personally - that's leaving aside the thousands of private emails that he published. And the other emails he publishes that he or his guest authors receive.

Plus that this article is now the umpteenth time he's accused the NOAA of fraud. He confirmed that he meant every word of the email. Then tries to claim that it's him that's been wronged.

The damning thing in my view is that he sent it to other ündisclosed recipients". Tat could very well constitute libel of Peterson and his coauthors, and if Watts'historic demands are to be consistent in this case, then Watts should reveal to whom else he sent that email.

But that's unlikely to happen is it, considering that he's an ideologically-motivated hypocrite... And that's not libel - it's demonstrable truth.

I can imagine Watts shaking his fists in red faced rage while screaming in the direction his treasured PV cells How the fnck did she write and post such an comprehensive reply within 45 minutes of mine?

She has the awareness of a fighter pilot. My brother used to fly Mirages. I took him flying before he started at the RAAF Academy. He could fly better than me in a fully aerobatic aircraft I was trying to master. I revel in the knowledge that someone is smarter than me. At least I may learn something! Bert

We used to have a publication called TRUTH in Melbourne. It had an editor who was a bankrupt and the remaining assets were owned by his dog. Nothing changes with these peddlers of misinformation just the faces. Bert

I remember that paper. That's probably where I got my deep distrust of anyone claiming to tell the "truth" from. (If someone says to me "to tell you the truth" - I immediately switch to alert mode. Can't help it.)

Yes, it was probably a mix of gutter press - sensationalist nonsense - and good investigative journalism. IIRC it had good sports coverage - of horse racing I think. But I might be confusing that part with the Sporting Globe.

I personally knew Bertram Wainer and his wife at the time. It was very grim for both of them. The publication 'The Truth' did do some investigating journalism. Just before its demise it was a rag.I would publicly say the police were running the backyard abortion clinics as they were the prostitution and gambling.We had total vertical integration in Victoria. The vice squad ran the prostitutes and gambling, the armed robbery squad ran the armed robbers and the homicide squad eliminated those that disagreed with this business model. I am not kidding. Bert

Lost in all this is Anthony's still-not-yet-written reply to Tom Peterson's questions about how to handle ship/buoy measurement discrepancies: "What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? "

Litigation is stressful. You must be psychologically and financially capable of wearing the cost not just of the court of first instance but also an appellant court and the possibilty a loss in both. I admit that I am litigious but my wife and I have the resources to cop a loss. In the largest of our 3 litigations (all commercial in nature) we lost in the lower court but won on appeal (3 nil) in the NSW Court of Appeal. (Our win set a planning law precedent and my name is now famous amongst 1st year law students in NSW).

Despite winning that matter, we were still down $200,000 as the costs awarded to us covered only 75% of our outlay. This is a typical outcome of cost applications in all Australian jurisdictions.

Given Watt's appalling conduct, there may be certain circumstances where one could seek remedies as a result of that conduct in an Australian jurisdiction. The chances of winning would be far greater than in CA and much cheaper. If an opportunity arises, crowd sourcing would be the best way to fund it.

Another irony in all this is that deniers go on and on about "debate". They claim they want to engage the scientists in a two-way discussion. Yet when Tom Peterson writes an excellent and courteous reply to Anthony's rude, crude and arguably defamatory email, and asks Anthony a reasonable question, not only does Anthony refuse to answer his question, he refuses to publish the reply.

I'm thinking it's the other way around. The blokes making decisions about the budget use blog denizens to justify their stance. The real influence comes from other more, um, influential quarters, most likely. (Anthony Watts and his mob are just the "useful idiots".)

dbstealey has convinced himself that Peterson posted his email correspondence on Sou's blog at Revkin's behest!!!!

"Revkin is a journalist, and he knows Peterson pretty well. Is there any doubt in your mind that they got their heads together, and came up with an action plan? Is there any doubt that Revkin understood what Peterson was planning to do with Anthony’s letter? Journalists ask questions. It’s what they do.

I think Revkin wass in on the whole thing from the beginning, and he knew what Peterson was planning. As Pat Frank points out, Peterson transformed Anthony’s private critical opinion into a manufactured public attack. It was deliberate. And of all the blogs to send it to, they decided on Hotwhopper. Miriam O’Brien is a real hater, and she’s fixated on Anthony and WUWT. From their perspective they could not have chosen a more damaging venue. And the Peterson/Revkin team did it without notifying Anthony. Is that OK with you?"

Next step : Revkin using his superpsychic powers hypnotised Watts so that he writes his (appaling) letter, allowing Peterson to give it to Sou so that it gets published and anyone can see ... that ... err ...Watts is into conspiracy theory (as shown by his blog) BUT CLIMATEGATE !!11!

@metzomagic "Every hour of every day, the case that Lewandowsky made in Recursive Fury just gets stronger and stronger..."

No conspiratorial thinking at WTFUWT.... nosiree bob...

[quote]dbstealeyJune 15, 2015 at 7:23 pm

[i]I worry that the left has infiltrated my church.[/i]

After Pope John Paul II faced down the Soviet Union, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was targeted by the KGB/FSB. They have a lot of patience. The current Pope is the result. Now they have their puppet in the Vatican.[/quote]

My God - the Pope a Soviet stooge! That's about as likely as... well, as Stealey not being, um, bonkers, when you think about it.

You couldn't make these folks up to such an extent that I am forced to conclude that maybe someone is... some might suspect Hollywood scriptwriters trying to make their plots (a quaint device to justify the frequent use of CGI, kids!) seem plausible by comparison, but I'm going to assert it's all an elaborate Comintern double-bluff. They play the long game, the comrades; but am I in on it, that's the question? Hmmm...

Unfortunately some high Vatican officials may have used recently some key words that trigger conservative conservatives to suspect all further input from that direction.. I believe Greg Laden had a blog post on that recently..

This infiltration of the Curia and College of Cardinals is supposed to have happened when Ratzinger - scourge of liberation theology - ruled the Vatican and Church with a rod of iron, as Chief of Staff and then as Benny da Pope. Anybody who could do that would already be running the world.

I guess that is precisely what they think. The evidence: Obama, Francis, Putin, Isis, Iran, the Chinese and North Korea.. HAARP and chemtrails, IPCC and UN Agenda 21.. The hidden deep bolshevism network.. The uber conspiracy to rule them all.. Scary stuff..;)

Stealey is a desperately unattractive human being and nothing he says or does surprises me. Watts looks good by comparison.

I have noticed an intellectual decline amongst the moderate deniers. M Courtney's recent comments could easily be mistaken for those of his father, the angry coal guy Richard S. Courtney(think Fred Singer sans American accent or science degree).

"I have noticed an intellectual decline amongst the moderate deniers."

Over at Deltoid at the moment we're in a discussion with the infamous Spagled Drongo, who says that sea level is falling (?!) and that there's been no warming in the US in a human lifetime. Another numpty, Stu 2, is making so many blunders of understanding that it's not even possible to know where to start in compiling them.

Drongo at least is very obviously exporting his nonsense from WUWT and similar sites, almost in real time. Stu 2... well, he's just a rusted-on denialist who, like Drongo, never pays attention to the fact that his arguments have been refuted time and time again.

Only a day or so ago I lamented the passing of Tim Curtin, who was at least an entertaining denialist who attempted to support his statements with figures, as poorly derived as they were.

The lack of a PhD did not prevent Courtney from signing himself 'Dr' or Richard Courtney Ph.D on various open letters and petitions. A sad pretence at expertise he does not have and a slur on all those who worked for their Doctorates.

I used to reply to him as 'Dr Courtney' at WUWT, but those posts all got pulled.

Watts is a basket case preaching to an echo-chamber of increasingly fewer fools.

Too bad the global climate is NOT following along with the skeptics. Actual measurements, scientific assessments and eye-witness report resoundingly PROVE skeptics are dead wrong and simply a bunch of kooks, nutcases, idiots and fools who can't accept reality. Watts exemplifies this in virtually everything he attempts to write (poorly).

Terms like "credible", "conscientious", "accurate", "ethical", "educated", "experienced" and "qualified" do not (and never have) apply to Watts or his band of deluded followers.

Personally, I'd LOVE for the climate to return to normal, and not be a clear and present threat to humanity and all life on Earth, but unfortunately, NOTHING indicates that our future is going to be anything other then a living hell. Either you accept the FACTS and the assessments and the measurements, or you embrace a lie.

Watts has clearly embraced a multitude of lies that are not supported by the facts.

Climate denialists are now in a embarrassing position that they can't get out of without losing face, which is apparently more important then telling the truth.

Unable to prove their case even slightly, they become more strident, more vocal and more wrong. Acting like children and refusing to grow up and accept reality, they scream ever the louder that it's not happening while the world gets hotter and hotter and extreme events occur with more frequently.

Has anyone projected what this could lead to in terms of human behavior in the years ahead? I have and it isn't pretty. It's going to be a very ugly time for all.

Nature does not care one bit about who is right and who is wrong, but humanity needs to care. Watts and his idiotic minions are doing an incredible amount of damage to humanity by obfuscating and lying about the reality of our common predicament. I won't even be polite to this clown - he deserves every smack down he gets because he not just "wrong", he is DANGEROUSLY wrong and he's leading a band of fools and idiots in the wrong direction.

Tolerance of fools and idiots is only acceptable when it is HARMLESS to others. However, climate denialism is no longer harmless. Climate denialism has wasted YEARS of possible progress at mitigation and solutions which we can NEVER get back now.

It is now unlikely that we have the "time" that some still think we have. The very latest data (today) is a strong indication that rapid unchecked acceleration of global temperatures has well exceeded any "threshold" for human intervention. Deniers like Watts are actively suppressing this reality and severity of our situation.

Unfortunately, we all share the same (and only) planet, but only some of us accept this new unfolding reality and what this means for common future.

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)